... "when TV+ is used"
not from inductments, just remove FF from TV when the TV+ calculations are done

Ok. I get that you think that's super clear, but it really isn't. If you remove FF from TV when calculating TVPlus only when using it for matchmaking you'd have to recalculate the value of zSum. 50 is based on including both FF and gold in excess of 150k. Doesn't mean it can't be done, of course... but people aren't being "excessively punished" through the inclusion of those things.

I’m definitely a fan of the BB2016 MVP rule being adopted to increase the control and skill factor involved in team building. The random allocation can be extremely detrimental at times. For example, in my current Lizard team (taking a sample size of one, lol) 20 out of 25 MVPs have gone to bloody skink bloat despite there being less skinks than Saurus on the team (combine that with opponents conceding when you’ve secured the match enough to go for Saurus TDs and it can really slow down team development… and lead to a lot of Skinks getting fired).

I’m less of a fan of resurrection mode in a medium length tourney such as the Champ ladder. In a short tourney (less than 20 games) I think res mode is definitely a good option as team development is handicapped already by the small number of games that can be played, so the impact of losing an important player is even more disadvantageous to the team (i.e. it’s always bad/sad but it’s not as crippling in a medium to long tourney as it is in your typical weekender). Again, I’m speaking here as a coach whose current Lizard team had 4 Saurus deaths (to random non-Claw Pom hits no less) and 2 + Agi skink deaths in 12 games. My view is that if you take the blood out of Blood Bowl, it’s just “bowl”, and nobody wants to play “bowl”

As for the playing early in the season issue, I think there will always be a player set that are disadvantaged in any open multiplayer environment by factors other than player skill. For BB2, some players have more time (meaning more games total and more grinding to catch that early win run), some players have access to a bigger pool of coaches during the hours they play (getting quicker matchups and a boarder range of opponent skill), some have dodgy internet and end up with DC concedes on their records regularly. With the relatively small player base of BB2 it’s difficult to create different environments to suit different types of gamers while still keeping the population high enough, and the matching flexible enough to get regular games. So, I think as a player base we have to accept that the limitations to our gaming probably aren’t Focus/Cyanides issue and just get on with enjoying the downtime we get (remembering we have some control over this by being a pleasant opponent and cursing Nuffle rather than our opposition – and keeping even this to a minimum). But I’ve been playing Blood Bowl in one form or another since the mid-90s so I’m probably a pretty easy customer for them to appeal to regardless.

That said, I’m fully supportive of any tweaks the admin make to the Champ ladder/BB2 to increase the number of people playing (and can’t wait for LE). Again, speaking as a coach who works 60+ hours a week and has a small, very energetic child, so definitely can’t play more than 30 odd games in a season, and seems to only be able to play on PC when no-one else is on so can spin for several iterations of 299secs, even to the point where it starts to look for similarly matched teams in other leagues – good old UTC+10. Thankfully my internet issues are fixed now

I say keep up the good work, and thanks to all the admins who volunteer their time!

My view is that if you take the blood out of Blood Bowl, it’s just “bowl”, and nobody wants to play “bowl”

While this has been said multiple times over the years, the fact is that perpetual play (and thus, long-term attrition) was always an optional aspect of the game which was called Blood Bowl regardless. The "blood" comes from being able to violently remove other players from the field - something you can do even in rez environments - but doing so is then a match strategy, not some arbitrary detriment to teams in the long term.

Likewise, star players are always treated as if they live in a rez environment - they have apothecaries that bring them back to life and with no injuries after every single game. Fluff is already in place... we'd just be hiring more of those folks!

You need to remember that the point of inducements was to help balance matches, they just caved to people's bitching about it and made them too weak to do it properly. If we don't want to balance matches lets do away with inducements altogether... if we do want to balance matches then lets have inducements do their job properly. This half-assery that we've been using makes NO SENSE.

Bullshit. It's been the same prices for the same inducements since inducements were introduced. They didn't cave to anything. The inducements cost exactly what they have since they were invented.

I'm really blown away that a guy who spent and spends so much time trying to cheat and break the game is seen as an expert on fairness. Am I taking crazy pills to be living in a world where the author of BBoracle is seen as an authority on fairness?

Bullshit. It's been the same prices for the same inducements since inducements were introduced. They didn't cave to anything. The inducements cost exactly what they have since they were invented.

They were deliberately made too weak in order to encourage team growth, but that matched with the concept of TV-based matching in a limited population environment means they aren't doing the environment a service.

I'm really blown away that a guy who spent and spends so much time trying to cheat and break the game is seen as an expert on fairness. Am I taking crazy pills to be living in a world where the author of BBoracle is seen as an authority on fairness?

Actually one could argue that if he wasn't trying to be fair he'd not have released it publicly. If he were trying to cheat he'd have kept it to himself, won a couple of world cups etc.

Bullshit. It's been the same prices for the same inducements since inducements were introduced. They didn't cave to anything. The inducements cost exactly what they have since they were invented.

You can head over to TFF and read the BBRC members' own statements on the topic - the people who created and priced the inducements - saying that they originally had inducements creating greater match balance, but they caved to complaints that it would discourage team development (even though team development is not optional - you can't refuse to gain skill rolls - so TV management and optimization is not optional).

I'm really blown away that a guy who spent and spends so much time trying to cheat and break the game is seen as an expert on fairness. Am I taking crazy pills to be living in a world where the author of BBoracle is seen as an authority on fairness?

If you don't want to believe my statement about what constitutes fairness in matchmaking feel free to refer to the statements by the developers of most of the largest esports games... unless you think they were "in on it" with my hairy-eyed machiavellian baby-eating h4x0r1F1k45huN? Those folks are responsible for competitive environments worth millions of dollars every month, so it's about more than armchair subjectivity in their cases.

as the leader of each race qualifies for play offs, I would realy apprecaite that ingame we could sort the Ranking by race

Would be nice also if the dates when the season finishes appears clearly ingame at least in the announcement message.

Regarding the suggestion in the opening mail, well makes me question if it is the CL systems which is critized or the Rules of BB itself.

I understand the choice of resetting teams for one season to another but still would love to be able to keep teams from one season to another and instead of naming each season : Season 1, Season 2..... Give them a name like "Chaos cup", etc.... that would renew each year. And after a full circle of tournament : teams or Coaches who would have the better performed qualifies for a Blood Bowl tournament...that would improve the experience and be awesome ! ( a format Like grand chelem tournament and Masters in Tennis)

Comparisons to games like Overwatch and League of Legends are not really valid, because there you only compensate for player's skill, as everyone starts with the same team/champion. I understand that you're trying to balance for the different teams as well, but I sure think this is a lot more difficult to achieve than for example using TV++ in a league of for example the current tabletop meta of 1100 TV teams with 6 skills.
I'm not saying it does not work for sure, I feel we would need too many games for this to balance properly. Also, keep in mind that Blood Bowl compared to for example LoL has a much lower skill influence on a game. Where a top player in LoL always = 99% of the games would win against an above average player, in Blood Bowl that player still only wins 80% of the time max. (I guess in LoL you have the randomness of your co players, so win rates even of smurf accounts are rarely above 80%)
It will still work to some extent, just the randomness of Blood Bowl does not help to get to your real TV++ ranking soon.

To those that still don't understand how to get a good record with a 50% win rate, the question is about when you'll get to that 50% win rate. so if you start a new account, you'de get bonus against good coaches so you'd probably win the first 5-10 games, until your skill level is adjusted to not get bonus against similar skill level coaches. that 10-1 record at the beginning, are actually being able to win with a steadily increasing TV++ rating will define the rankings.
so the question is, is a 1 game per day player (as is the current assumption in the CL) able to reach his real TV++ rating given all the variance? No clue, I guess after 20 games 90% of the players would reach that.

Are TV++ coach levels carried over to the new season? Because if they are, basically the top coaches don't need to play because they already sit at the highest ranking. If they are not, everyone starts fresh and the first 10 games of every coach are unbalanced again. How would you propose to handle this?

Opposition TV++, will there be TV++ ranks for matching? so for example in LoL, if I'm a gold player I can only be matched against similar gold and mabye one rank up or down in level of play. Meaning I have a high TV++, I'd much rather enjoy a game against another high TV++ coach (with TV++ accounting for Team imbalance) than having to play a rookie teams against a rookie coach with 800k inducements. But I guess that's just my preference and could surely be handled in matchmaking.

Yes please make the sorting by race available, as the goblinspy has not all the games recorded.

Comparisons to games like Overwatch and League of Legends are not really valid, because there you only compensate for player's skill, as everyone starts with the same team/champion.

They are totally valid comparisons - what you're saying is that they're not identical, and that's true, but they are comparable in terms of what we're discussing: they are games that are considered serious, competitive games and they have a high-use matchmaking system.

I understand that you're trying to balance for the different teams as well, but I sure think this is a lot more difficult to achieve than for example using TV++ in a league of for example the current tabletop meta of 1100 TV teams with 6 skills.

I don't think it is. Keep in mind that TVPlus is not creating an environment-transcending objective measure of roster or team strengths, it is creating an environment-specific subjective balance based on the environment it is used in. It is a self-correcting system that looks for balance within the environment, not to impose a static, external balance that is common to all environments.

I'm not saying it does not work for sure, I feel we would need too many games for this to balance properly.

It'd likely take 2-5 games to find a comfortable spot for any given team assuming it is a brand new team from a brand new coach. It's faster than that if the coach has a previous record to work from. If they happen to be more than two standard deviations away from the mean in terms of coaching skill it could take a game or two extra. Most people will be within only a few points of their roster's mean zSum, which is where we start them.

You're also talking about optimum balance for a team... even when its on its way there, it's achieving improved balance with every match. Every point is 50k worth of difference above and beyond the actual TV differences from team development.

so the question is, is a 1 game per day player (as is the current assumption in the CL) able to reach his real TV++ rating given all the variance? No clue, I guess after 20 games 90% of the players would reach that.

They should get there very quickly, and we can control the rate by altering the value of each point of zSum. Want it slower but more precise? Reduce it... Want it faster and dirtier? Increase it. The point of TVPlus is to promote that 50% rate, not to force it... you force it by alternating too easy and too hard games, and that's dumb... you encourage it by giving people balanced matches and accepting that their rating will fluctuate around their optimal value, not be glued to exactly that value. We can also add further controls to smooth out the progression if needed, though that complicates the system progressively, and there's only so much controlling we want to do.

Are TV++ coach levels carried over to the new season? Because if they are, basically the top coaches don't need to play because they already sit at the highest ranking. If they are not, everyone starts fresh and the first 10 games of every coach are unbalanced again. How would you propose to handle this?

CCL forced everyone to start fresh teams, so that's easy. COL does not, and we do not want to alter the zSum for existing teams.. if you worry that people will choose not to play then that's a ranking system issue not a matchmaking issue. You can, for example, build in rating decay that decreases their rank rating slightly for every day they do not play a match... which forces people to maintain their rank rather than leave it stagnant.

Opposition TV++, will there be TV++ ranks for matching? so for example in LoL, if I'm a gold player I can only be matched against similar gold and mabye one rank up or down in level of play. Meaning I have a high TV++, I'd much rather enjoy a game against another high TV++ coach (with TV++ accounting for Team imbalance) than having to play a rookie teams against a rookie coach with 800k inducements. But I guess that's just my preference and could surely be handled in matchmaking.

Well, we're at the mercy of population size on this one, and the method they opt to use for matchmaking. Most people seem to feel matching on TVPlus rating is a good idea in a full TVPlus environment.. in which case high TVPlus rated teams will preferentially be matched with other high TVPlus rated teams... but if they're not available then you get the closest thing it can find... and if there's really nobody else available, you might get that rookie coach with 800k of inducements.

Matchmaking already has that issue... but unlike full TVPlus, it just creates the bad match and lets both sides deal with it. At least that rookie would be something of a challenge when given the 800k of inducements... currently it'd give him nothing to balance the fact that you're tons better than him.. it'd just let you curb stomp him and potentially ruin his team. Blood Bowl has a handicap system.. we should be using it to deal with these things.

Better coaches have more chances to be the underdog
+
They get a real bloat with FF
+
Inducments are usually considered overprized

=

IMO this is about fair enough, like said a wise man "If you suck at the game, get better."

The whole compareason with chess and ELO is a waste : Elo protect you a bit in the last rounds of a tournament but you should see what really is the "swiss system" and in all cases it doesn't give you any protection in a champ !!

Should Kasparov have given a second queen to the opponents ? I don't think so, it would have killed the game's interest. Who wants Kasparov with a 50% win/rate ? What pleasure to beat him with two queens ?

For VodooMike : how far would you get ? A coach with a 30/0/0 record gives 1500TV of inducments to a coach with the same TV but wirh a 10/10/10 record ?
If we follow your thoughts that would be the most fair, isn't it ?

For the healing part

It seems to me that most of the systems proposed would be a boost to the more violent teams : at least in the actual system they can die sometimes, specially with the "5 concessions max" rules. I would down it to 3 if it was me...

Other teams are used to die a lot so i don't see it as a big issue anyway.

IMO this is about fair enough, like said a wise man "If you suck at the game, get better."

IMO it is not fair enough. Given that people complain about unfair match-ups, it sounds like plenty of folks also don't think it is fair enough. For people who snidely say things like "get better at the game" it's funny that they fear a system that would make matches more difficult for them.

Should Kasparov have given a second queen to the opponents ? I don't think so, it would have killed the game's interest. Who wants Kasparov with a 50% win/rate ? What pleasure to beat him with two queens ?

Chess doesn't have a handicapping system of that sort, but Blood Bowl does and always has. Saying handicapping is stupid is itself stupid when you're talking about a game that already uses it... unless you think we should do away with inducements altogether?

As for playing Kasparov... if there are no opponents close to him in proficiency and we want to play games that aren't a foregone conclusion then I'd say sure, give the underdog an extra queen. Probably won't help. Give him two... or whatever. You think Kasparov enjoys games with no challenge? Luckily, the pool of potential players is large enough to handle it.. BB's isn't.

For VodooMike : how far would you get ? A coach with a 30/0/0 record gives 1500TV of inducments to a coach with the same TV but wirh a 10/10/10 record ?
If we follow your thoughts that would be the most fair, isn't it ?

If those records were created under a full TVPlus system then it'd be a fair match with those inducements, yes. That's the intellectual stumbling block folks like you have - you try to transplant records made in a regular environment into full TVPlus, and that's nonsensical - the records have to be created through progressive play. That 30-0 guy had to have won every game despite each game treating him as 50 TV higher than the last... and clearly he managed just fine. The theoretical match you're talking about is only 50k tougher than the last for the overdog. I'm guessing he'll be ok.

It seems to me that most of the systems proposed would be a boost to the more violent teams : at least in the actual system they can die sometimes, specially with the "5 concessions max" rules. I would down it to 3 if it was me...

Rez does not boost bash, it boosts agility. Agility has a harder time preventing player loss than bash does, and bash already wins less than agility does... without the long-term attrition aspect bash teams no longer have a survival edge, and thus, are likely to be less popular than they are now (they are overly popular).

Of course it should be optional... if you start your own league it should be however you want it. In open play, though, you can't generally give players the option... it usually has to be consistent for everyone in open play.

IMO it is not fair enough. Given that people complain about unfair match-ups, it sounds like plenty of folks also don't think it is fair enough. For people who snidely say things like "get better at the game" it's funny that they fear a system that would make matches more difficult for them.

People who wants to play in a "champion" league where everybody is 50% winrate ?

There are rookie leagues, stunty leagues, anti-bash leagues, garbage leagues and if it don't anybody can create his league ....

@Strider84 said in Every Champion Ladder without changes is a wasted season:

I'm not saying it does not work for sure, I feel we would need too many games for this to balance properly.

It'd likely take 2-5 games to find a comfortable spot for any given team assuming it is a brand new team from a brand new coach. It's faster than that if the coach has a previous record to work from. If they happen to be more than two standard deviations away from the mean in terms of coaching skill it could take a game or two extra. Most people will be within only a few points of their roster's mean zSum, which is where we start them.

So with a one win moving up 50TV that would mean after 5 wins giving up 250 TV which top coaches can probably just overcome. Fair enough I guess we'd have to try out a bit whether 50, 30 or 100 is the right amount to separate for one win / loss. So a 5 0 0 in TV++ will be somewhat like a 10 0 0 now because half the wins are just free wins due to matchups.

given the luck factor some people might actually jump up to a +7*50 TV++, latest then it should get pretty hard.

People who wants to play in a "champion" league where everybody is 50% winrate ?

Everyone would be moved toward approximately a 50% win rate, yes.. though the point of the champion league is to qualify for the end of season tournament, which is not run as open MM. So, either you're in CCL just to play for fun in which case its no different than COL, or you're looking to get into the tournament and win in which case you want the most accurate ranking system to show you're the best, then you want to play in a normal tournament. Works out just fine.

I just find the TV++ really sad : everybody at 50% and an algorithm says us who has won ?
That system seems to me an intellectuale quest of perfect justice which :

will never be reached
is not fun to me.

You're an acceptable sacrifice, especially since you think you can tell what IS fun to you before you've tried things. This isn't a whipping, or prison rape... it's oversensationalism on the part of people who want to pretend they like the game hard, but who clearly and desperately fear the game being harder for them even if it makes it more manageable for others.

It's not theory it's real : we NEED the CPOMB CW to die sometimes as we also NEED the ST4 AG5 WD to really fear death. Both.

It's a theory that they don't mind - a theory that I think is pretty obviously incorrect. The idea that those things have to die is a different theory, and it's a theory that they have to be removed via on-pitch attrition. It's good that they can be taken off the field during a game, but I don't see it necessary to connect that with long-term attrition. Alternative methods that are balanced across the rosters, such as ageing and BB2016 seasons with the "wants to retire" flag on players works just as well to remove overdeveloped players... and applies evenly, so we stop seeing open MM being profoundly bash heavy.

I think the balance of the game needs it, appart from rez or ageing again.

Remember that a need for a limited lifespan on certain players is not the same thing as a need for on-pitch long-term attrition. You can feel there is a need for the former without it meaning there's a need for the latter... and it is the latter that causes the known demographic issues and a whole lot of griping.

So with a one win moving up 50TV that would mean after 5 wins giving up 250 TV which top coaches can probably just overcome.

Keep in mind that it isn't just that one person who is moving in zSum. Those top coaches you're referring to will also have changed zSum values, and the inducements are being calculated based on BOTH ratings, not just one person's rating. It will find the appropriate rating for each person such that the difference between two people's ratings is roughly the appropriate amount to balance the match between those two people.

So a 5 0 0 in TV++ will be somewhat like a 10 0 0 now because half the wins are just free wins due to matchups.

It's unlikely to involve "free wins". We don't need to start every team at 0 zSum... we can use a coach's own mean, normalized z-score of zSums to calculate the appropriate starting zSum for a new team... and we can use a roster's mean zSum for a totally new player's new team. The vast majority of people will be within a few points of that value when the rating "stabilizes" so to speak. Thus, even the first few matches are unlikely to be much too easy or much too hard for a team.

I don't mean average players just jumping to +7, but if +5 being the top players, why should they not get 2 more wins with some luck.

So as for real implementation, the main issue I understand is that they at the moment can only make the changes for "all" leagues, which of course would not be the ideal thing to do.

maybe they get this separated properly for Legendary edition, if they want to do Res leagues and live / tabletop leagues. Only thing is if it isn't in the main CL then the amount of games might not be enough for it to actually work.

I don't mean average players just jumping to +7, but if +5 being the top players, why should they not get 2 more wins with some luck.

Sure, it'll fluctuate and then correct itself specifically because a luck-based fluctuation in either direction will significantly change the difficulty of the matches, and if it was luck that took you there then your skill won't be able to keep you there.

There are ways to smooth out the fluctuations, but they add complexity to the system and are probably better left as a "maybe someday" thing if the fluctuations are found to be an issue.

So as for real implementation, the main issue I understand is that they at the moment can only make the changes for "all" leagues, which of course would not be the ideal thing to do.

No, they could make it all optional, they just haven't been doing so because it's faster to apply global changes than it is to apply selective changes. The developers CAN do pretty much anything, it's simply a matter of getting them to do things and getting them to do them in a way that makes sense.

maybe they get this separated properly for Legendary edition, if they want to do Res leagues and live / tabletop leagues. Only thing is if it isn't in the main CL then the amount of games might not be enough for it to actually work.

It only really matters for the main, open play league... eg.. COL... since that's where most of the play happens, and certainly where most of the play by newer players happens. A system that tunes matches to each coach's ability while still ranking them appropriately should improve the user experience for all the people who are going to matchmaking for a challenging game of BB but who don't enjoy being creamed and having their teams torn to bits while they try to improve their play.

I like it. Looking forward trying that out if it ever happens. i do belive the matchmaking in champion ladder is already okish, apart from when there are really too few people activating I guess. Of course adding some chainsaw start players will already help.

Again it seems to me that you are thinking only theorically : if there is no risk for your player's health why not leaping 16 turns in a row ? Why not pile on every turn ?

Unless you have realtime mind-reading capabilities we're all thinking "only theoretically" when it comes to the motivations of other people's behaviour. Keep in mind, also, that the tabletop game's tournaments are all played as rez... and that's the most serious form of play - these are people who painstakingly modify and paint miniatures and often travel hundreds of miles to participate in BB that can lead to tangible prizes.

The risk of dumb on-pitch moves is that they'll lose you the game. The risk associated with on-pitch attrition causing long-term attrition is that people will not play to WIN the game as much as they might play to PRESERVE their team. I think the game would be more fun if everyone was doing everything in their power to win each match.

Oh, hi again crazyguy_co! I was sorry to see you got yourself banned via that other thread, but I'm glad you're demonstrating why forum bans are better left as a threat than used as an actual moderation tool.

playing with rez is just handing them free wins, much the same way that playing with your suggested TV+ full rules is just favoring players who want to injure and kill, not win games.

You mean except for the fact that the full TVPlus rules involve rez? We went over this on the other thread.. are you so desperate to pretend you were aware that TVPlus rating matchmaking has been in place for over a year that you actually made a new account to continue your backpedaling?